Questions about BBC’s “Prehistoric Planet” Episode 1

Sight Reader

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 4:25:05 PM6/22/22

to

OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)

Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:

(1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?

(2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)

(3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?

(4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)

(5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?

(6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?

(7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?

(8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.

(9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?

(10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?

(11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?

Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!

erik simpson

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 5:30:16 PM6/22/22

to

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:25:05 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)
>
> Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:

I'm just giving these answers off the top of my head. You could probably find better answers using Google and Wikipedia (try it).

>
> (1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?

Not that I know of.

>
> (2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)
>

Not that I know of.

> (3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
>

No.

> (4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
>

Pterosaur tracks have be found that indicate plantigrade walking on hind legs with "walking stick" imprints from front legs.

> (5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?

Don't know about colonies, no evidence for instinctual climbing. (Behavior hardly ever fossilizes.)

>
> (6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?
>

Don't know.

>
> (7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?
>

> (8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.
>

Nothing.

> (9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?
>

It's possible, doubt there's evidence.

> (10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?
>

Again, behavior doesn't fossilize.

> (11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?
>

Not that I know of.

> Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!

TV shows can be very interesting and informative, but the temptation to extrapolate and go for spectacular effects
is very strong. You're right to ask questions. As my late advisor (not in paleontology) once remarked, "There are no
stupid questions, there are only stupid people who ask questions". He had a gift for saying things that sometimes
came out sounding awkward.

John Harshman

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 5:56:14 PM6/22/22

to

On 6/22/22 1:25 PM, Sight Reader wrote:
> OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)
>
> Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:

I think almost everything you ask about here is just speculation for
which there is no direct evidence and, for most, couldn't be.

> (1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?

None, to my knowledge.

> (2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)

Assuming a stable population, that actually seems very liberal. Only two
of an individual's offspring should live to reproduce, meaning that only
slightly more than two might live to maturity.

> (3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?

No such evidence could likely exist. I know of no evidence for play in
sibling birds, in or out of the nest. That doesn't mean there isn't any.
But to extrapolate from living theropods to extinct, giant ones is dubious.

> (4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)

Most reconstructions have them walking (not hopping) on four legs.

> (5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?

No. I have no idea what evidence for that could exist.

> (6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?

Nothing that I know of.

> (7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?

No evidence is possible.

> (8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.

No evidence is possible. Teeth are more reasonably interpreted as predation.

> (9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?

No evidence is possible.

>
> (10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?

No evidence is possible. This is just taken from living squid, very
distant relatives.

> (11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?

No, this is just extrapolated from some living cephalopods.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 9:21:43 PM6/22/22

to

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/22/22 1:25 PM, Sight Reader wrote:
> > OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)
> >
> > Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
> I think almost everything you ask about here is just speculation for
> which there is no direct evidence and, for most, couldn't be.
> > (1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?
> None, to my knowledge.
> > (2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)
> Assuming a stable population, that actually seems very liberal. Only two
> of an individual's offspring should live to reproduce, meaning that only
> slightly more than two might live to maturity.

I would expect major ups and downs in a population of recently evolved top predators.
Keep in mind that T-Rex is confined to the upper third of the Maastrichtian,
ca. two million years, yet had a wide range.

So while the "average clutch" would not have a 5-member survival rate, it could happen
for some extended "boom" stages. These might be especially pronounced
as the species was conquering new parts of its final range.

By the way, I would expect most fossils of any animal to be found when the population
was near the peak of a boom stage, so it may not be out of the question for us to
find a fossilized nest of 15 T-Rex eggs.

> > (3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?

> No such evidence could likely exist. I know of no evidence for play in
> sibling birds, in or out of the nest. That doesn't mean there isn't any.
> But to extrapolate from living theropods to extinct, giant ones is dubious.

I don't know whether big crocodilians have playful juveniles; do you?

> > (4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)

> Most reconstructions have them walking (not hopping) on four legs.

Peter Wellnhofer's "pterosaur bible" spends much of pages 155-158 discussing pterosaur locomotion on the ground.
With certain specialized exceptions, he comes to the same conclusion.

> > (5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?
> No. I have no idea what evidence for that could exist.

Wellnhofer writes on p. 157:

"Pterosaurs were adapted to flight to an extreme extent. ...
They must have rested and bred on cliffs and rocks,
where they could hang with their sharp, hook-shaped claws
on hands and feet. To take off, they only needed to
swing themselves into the air. They did not need to
achieve the necessary take-off speed by taking a run on two legs."

My brother-in-law is an expert hang glider, and the last two sentences ring true
from what I've seen him do.

> > (6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?
> Nothing that I know of.
> > (7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?
> No evidence is possible.

However, there might be evidence that it was possible. Of course, the "courtship display" part is purely speculative.

> > (8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.
> No evidence is possible. Teeth are more reasonably interpreted as predation.

Or self-defense, or a mixture of both. A mammalian example: two stabbing "cats," of genera Nimravus and Eusmilus,
apparently fought each other, perhaps over prey, because the Nimravus skull was found with big holes
that were interpreted as fang marks of an Eusmilus.

> > (9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?
> No evidence is possible.

Why not? There have been a number of conclusions from fossil melanosomes of other kinds of animals
for there being various forms of pigmentation.

> > (10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?
> No evidence is possible. This is just taken from living squid, very
> distant relatives.

According to Wikipedia, ammonites are phylogenetically closer to coleoids (squids, cuttlefish, and octopi) than are the nautiluses.
Don't nautiluses have changing bioluminescent patterns?

> > (11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?
> No, this is just extrapolated from some living cephalopods.

Which ones? if both nautiluses and coleoids are like this, it seems reasonable to infer that ammonites were like this too.

Granted, there is always the possibility of convergent evolution, with the "middle" taxons being more
"conservative" than the extremes. As you know very well, this is true of paleognathic birds, with tinamous being
monophyletic and the ratites being polyphyletic, with convergent features.

Either tomorrow or Friday, I will be posting some interesting details on paleognathic evolution on the thread, "Do birds dream?"

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 9:43:56 PM6/22/22

to

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 4:25:05 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)

If you could find the url for that website, I'd like to take a look at it.

> Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:

I've said about all I can say about your questions in discussing John Harshman's reply to you with him.

But feel free to ask about anything I wrote to him.

One exception is pterosaur locomotion, and I can copy or paraphrase a lot from Wellnhofer's great book,
but it's nearing my bedtime. I'm an early riser because early morning is the only part of the day it isn't
uncomfortably warm and humid outside.

By the way, did "Coasts" show any pterosaurs catching fish? Wellnhofer had a number of things to say about that.

<huge snip>

> Sorry if some of these are stupid questions - I’m just a beginner - and thanks for any help ya got!

As a professor with five decades of teaching experience (including two as a graduate student) I have
developed an enormous tolerance for naive questions. Occasionally those are the best ones to get me thinking
outside the box, something I do to a greater extent than most people.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,

Jun 22, 2022, 10:00:09 PM6/22/22

to

On 6/22/22 6:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/22/22 1:25 PM, Sight Reader wrote:
>>> OK, I finally got a chance to watch episode 1 with my family. It says “go to our website to see the science behind the episode” but there’s nothing there but a single video explaining the absolute least controversial thing they show (maybe I was in the wrong part of the website?)
>>>
>>> Anyway, here are my questions for episode 1, “Coasts”, almost all concerning what sort of evidence has been discovered to support various behaviors and facts displayed in the documentary:
>> I think almost everything you ask about here is just speculation for
>> which there is no direct evidence and, for most, couldn't be.
>>> (1) Evidence MALE T-Rexes raised and cared for offspring rather than females?
>> None, to my knowledge.
>>> (2) Evidence that an average of 2/3 of an average T-Rex clutch of 15 does not live to maturity (I didn’t know they actually found a T-Rex nest with 15 eggs!)
>> Assuming a stable population, that actually seems very liberal. Only two
>> of an individual's offspring should live to reproduce, meaning that only
>> slightly more than two might live to maturity.
>
> I would expect major ups and downs in a population of recently evolved top predators.
> Keep in mind that T-Rex is confined to the upper third of the Maastrichtian,
> ca. two million years, yet had a wide range.
>
> So while the "average clutch" would not have a 5-member survival rate, it could happen
> for some extended "boom" stages. These might be especially pronounced
> as the species was conquering new parts of its final range.
>
> By the way, I would expect most fossils of any animal to be found when the population
> was near the peak of a boom stage, so it may not be out of the question for us to
> find a fossilized nest of 15 T-Rex eggs.

This is all possible, but like most other things mentioned in the OP, we
have no real way of knowing. Many predators do not have a boom-and-bust
dynamic. No way to tell if T. rex did.

>>> (3) Evidence for how juvenile T-Rexes played (do birds do this and if so, how)?
>
>> No such evidence could likely exist. I know of no evidence for play in
>> sibling birds, in or out of the nest. That doesn't mean there isn't any.
>> But to extrapolate from living theropods to extinct, giant ones is dubious.
>
> I don't know whether big crocodilians have playful juveniles; do you?

No, I don't. I might have mentioned that I do know of what appears to be
play in some adult birds.

>>> (4) Did pterosaurs bear their weight on their (tiny) hind limbs and use their forward limbs mostly as “crutches”? I thought they would have weight on their forelimbs and kinda vault forward (like that vampire bat on a treadmill…)
>
>> Most reconstructions have them walking (not hopping) on four legs.
>
> Peter Wellnhofer's "pterosaur bible" spends much of pages 155-158 discussing pterosaur locomotion on the ground.
> With certain specialized exceptions, he comes to the same conclusion.

Yes, and Erik has also mentioned the evidence of trackways.

>>> (5) Have we found evidence of large pterosaur colonies on cliff plateaus? Is there evidence that pterosaur hatchlings had an instinct to climb cliffs immediately for protection?
>> No. I have no idea what evidence for that could exist.
>
> Wellnhofer writes on p. 157:
>
> "Pterosaurs were adapted to flight to an extreme extent. ...
> They must have rested and bred on cliffs and rocks,
> where they could hang with their sharp, hook-shaped claws
> on hands and feet. To take off, they only needed to
> swing themselves into the air. They did not need to
> achieve the necessary take-off speed by taking a run on two legs."
>
> My brother-in-law is an expert hang glider, and the last two sentences ring true
> from what I've seen him do.

Still, what evidence of this could we possibly find?

>>> (6) Have we found what sorts of stuff pterosaurs burying their eggs in preserve moisture?
>> Nothing that I know of.
>>> (7) What evidence is there for male plesiosaurs raising their necks high above water as a courtship display?
>> No evidence is possible.
>
> However, there might be evidence that it was possible. Of course, the "courtship display" part is purely speculative.

Certainly their necks (elasmosaurs, at least) were flexible enough to
allow them to be raised. Everything else is simply speculation based on
the courtship displays of some birds.

>>> (8) What do we know about mosasaur rutting behavior? How deadly was it? They mention finding mosasaur teeth imbedded in other the skulls of others.
>> No evidence is possible. Teeth are more reasonably interpreted as predation.
>
> Or self-defense, or a mixture of both. A mammalian example: two stabbing "cats," of genera Nimravus and Eusmilus,
> apparently fought each other, perhaps over prey, because the Nimravus skull was found with big holes
> that were interpreted as fang marks of an Eusmilus.
>
>
>>> (9) Is there evidence that ammonite were bioluminescent - that is, had “photocytes”?
>> No evidence is possible.
>
> Why not? There have been a number of conclusions from fossil melanosomes of other kinds of animals
> for there being various forms of pigmentation.

I don't think any ammonite soft tissue is even known. And melanosomes
are just that: bodies containing melanin. Nothing about bioluminescence,
even if melanosomes had been found for ammonites. This is nothing more
than analogy with some extant, very distantly related cephalopods.

>>> (10) If ammonites were bioluminescent, is there evidence that their ability to choreograph and match the changing bioluminescent patterns of others was a key to group behavior and mating displays?
>> No evidence is possible. This is just taken from living squid, very
>> distant relatives.
>
> According to Wikipedia, ammonites are phylogenetically closer to coleoids (squids, cuttlefish, and octopi) than are the nautiluses.
> Don't nautiluses have changing bioluminescent patterns?

I don't know. Do you?

>>> (11) Have we found evidence of massive ammonite mating gatherings and that ammonites died shortly after reproduction?
>> No, this is just extrapolated from some living cephalopods.
>
> Which ones? if both nautiluses and coleoids are like this, it seems reasonable to infer that ammonites were like this too.

Some cephalopods are semelparous. Others are not. I don't think you can
draw conclusions about ammonites from the pattern. You could try
phylogenetic bracketing, but if the extant taxa differ within
themselves, that won't work.

> Granted, there is always the possibility of convergent evolution, with the "middle" taxons being more
> "conservative" than the extremes. As you know very well, this is true of paleognathic birds, with tinamous being
> monophyletic and the ratites being polyphyletic, with convergent features.

Yep. Phylogenetic bracketing is weak evidence indeed, for that very reason.

Sight Reader

unread,

Jun 23, 2022, 12:34:17 PM6/23/22

to

Wow, thank ALL of you guys for your time and generous responses!

(1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”

(2) Then at the end: “To discover the science behind the stories, go to the Prehistoric Planet show page.” No link is given for the show page, but the most likely page has a single “bonus content” video for this episode. The nicely produced bonus video only mentions footprint evidence for T-Rex swimming but does not discuss any of the questions I raised above.

(3) Show consultants are S Brusatte, A Farnnsworth, K Formoso, H Habib, S Hartman, J Hutchinson, L Muscutt, P Skelton, R Spicer, P Valdes and M Witton.

(4) I had some photos of male tuarangisaurus pedaling skywards and thrusting their heads high and straight above water for sexual display and of the bioluminescent ammonites, but I can’t figure out how to attach photos to my post.

(5) If ammonites did die en-masse after mating (they show masses of ammonites bodies washing up on a beach), might it be possible that they found such masses of ammonites fossilized together?

(6) If eggs were deliberately buried to preserve moisture, might it be possible that remains of the burial material might have fossilized along with the egg underneath?

(7) Might fossilized plateau colonies of pterosaurs be possible? If so, how would we verified the plateau was indeed surrounded by a cliffs?

(8) I’m glad to hear of the trackways verifying the pterosaur gaits! Is it true that their “hands” faced backwards as they walked?

Thanks again everyone!

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Jun 24, 2022, 11:01:53 PM6/24/22

to

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 12:34:17 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow, thank ALL of you guys for your time and generous responses!
>
> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”
>
> (2) Then at the end: “To discover the science behind the stories, go to the Prehistoric Planet show page.” No link is given for the show page, but the most likely page has a single “bonus content” video for this episode. The nicely produced bonus video only mentions footprint evidence for T-Rex swimming but does not discuss any of the questions I raised above.
>
> (3) Show consultants are S Brusatte, A Farnnsworth, K Formoso, H Habib, S Hartman, J Hutchinson, L Muscutt, P Skelton, R Spicer, P Valdes and M Witton.
>
> (4) I had some photos of male tuarangisaurus pedaling skywards and thrusting their heads high and straight above water for sexual display and of the bioluminescent ammonites, but I can’t figure out how to attach photos to my post.

Usenet does not make posting of photos or of personal pdf's possible, only links to such things in webpages.
As you may know, lots of forums don't allow even that much.

> (5) If ammonites did die en-masse after mating (they show masses of ammonites bodies washing up on a beach), might it be possible that they found such masses of ammonites fossilized together?
>
> (6) If eggs were deliberately buried to preserve moisture, might it be possible that remains of the burial material might have fossilized along with the egg underneath?
>
> (7) Might fossilized plateau colonies of pterosaurs be possible? If so, how would we verified the plateau was indeed surrounded by a cliffs?
>
> (8) I’m glad to hear of the trackways verifying the pterosaur gaits! Is it true that their “hands” faced backwards as they walked?
>
> Thanks again everyone!

I'll have to think about these questions over the weekend. I have a policy of posting here on weekends only under extraordinary circumstances,
which means less than two a year on average since 2010.

I would have posted a lot more today, including on the topic I promised Harshman about,
but the SCOTUS abortion decision this morning has dominated almost my whole day,
in one way or another. But I'll be back on Monday, for sure, making up for lost time!

By the way, please don't forget to tell us what the program showed in the way of pterosaurs fishing.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,

Jun 25, 2022, 10:48:11 AM6/25/22

to

On 6/23/22 9:34 AM, Sight Reader wrote:
> Wow, thank ALL of you guys for your time and generous responses!
>
> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”
>
> (2) Then at the end: “To discover the science behind the stories, go to the Prehistoric Planet show page.” No link is given for the show page, but the most likely page has a single “bonus content” video for this episode. The nicely produced bonus video only mentions footprint evidence for T-Rex swimming but does not discuss any of the questions I raised above.
>
> (3) Show consultants are S Brusatte, A Farnnsworth, K Formoso, H Habib, S Hartman, J Hutchinson, L Muscutt, P Skelton, R Spicer, P Valdes and M Witton.

Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark
Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.

In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.

> (4) I had some photos of male tuarangisaurus pedaling skywards and thrusting their heads high and straight above water for sexual display and of the bioluminescent ammonites, but I can’t figure out how to attach photos to my post.
>
> (5) If ammonites did die en-masse after mating (they show masses of ammonites bodies washing up on a beach), might it be possible that they found such masses of ammonites fossilized together?

There are such masses, but there are plenty of explanations for dense
deposits other than mass death after spawning.

> (6) If eggs were deliberately buried to preserve moisture, might it be possible that remains of the burial material might have fossilized along with the egg underneath?

Certainly.

> (7) Might fossilized plateau colonies of pterosaurs be possible? If so, how would we verified the plateau was indeed surrounded by a cliffs?

Possible, but I don't know of any. And it's certainly possible to
investigate the nature of the paleo-surface.

> (8) I’m glad to hear of the trackways verifying the pterosaur gaits! Is it true that their “hands” faced backwards as they walked?

You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.

> Thanks again everyone!

Sight Reader

unread,

Jun 29, 2022, 1:23:41 PM6/29/22

to

Hello and thank you for the great feedback!

I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”
> >

> In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.

Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.

> Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark
> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.

Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.

> You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.

Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.

Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?

John Harshman

unread,

Jun 29, 2022, 11:26:52 PM6/29/22

to

On 6/29/22 10:23 AM, Sight Reader wrote:
> Hello and thank you for the great feedback!
>
> I’m finishing up a vacation so it might be a bit before I have time to post much more. Anyway…
>
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 10:48:11 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> (1) First, a paraphrase of the show’s opening: “T-Rex… what kind of animal was it? How did it live? Now, scientific research has answered such questions, not just about T-Rex, but the other species that lived along side it. This is their story.”
>>>
>> In general, there's nothing wrong with presenting speculation in a TV
>> show. The problem is in presenting it as fact.
>
> Based on the intro above, do you think they crossed the line? It’s not clear what parts of the show are speculation and what parts are supported by evidence.

On the other hand, if they don't make anything up they're sure to be wrong.

>> Not sure who all these people are, but at least Steve Brusatte and Mark
>> Witton are real vertebrate paleontologists.
>
> Other full names: Dr. Alexander Farnsworth, Kiersten Formoso, Dr. Michael Habib, Dr. Scott Hartman, Prof. John Hutchinson, Dr. Luke Muscutt, Dr. Peter Skelton, Prof. Robert Spicer, Prof. Paul Valdes.

I don't know those folks. One assumes they're vertebrate paleontologists.

>> You can google "pterosaur trackway" to see many examples. I don't see
>> any with digits pointing backwards on fore or hind limbs.
>
> Ah, thank you! By the way, I did NOT get that bit about backwards digits from the TV show, but it came from confusion trying to decipher something else I read.
>
> Speaking of vacation, I just came back from visiting the Smithsonian (Egads, those guys have just about EVERYTHING on display, but compressed into a few areas that little kids dash past in a matter of seconds). Naturally, most of what’s on display are not the fossils themselves but casts or replicas of some sort. Since it’s possible to manufacture replicas of that quality, is there some kind of law or something that keeps additional replicas from being generated and sent to other museums?

No. A lot of museums do have replicas of various fossils. But everybody
likes real fossils better.

Glenn

unread,

Jun 30, 2022, 1:16:14 PM6/30/22

to

Related note,

"fossils are often rare or entirely unique physical specimens, closely guarded by scientists and museums, which makes their 3D data unusually valuable. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00739-0

There's a lot of talk about the subject:

"Such composite fossils are common and often found in museums"

https://fossilcollector.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/fakingit2/

Have fun

erik simpson

unread,

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 7:55:49 AM7/4/22

to

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 2:38:23 PM7/4/22

to

I've read a great many of his posts, and only a small minority fit your
description; more importantly, I have never seen an attack that
is any different from my numerous attacks of documentable inaccuracies.

I challenge you to try and find a single bit of hard evidence that
he is motivated by creationism.

> > Until now, all I've seen either here or in talk.origins
> > is unsupported accusations, like the much rarer claims that *I* am a creationist!
> >
> > I am more intelligently anti-creationisM [note that last letter -- definitely not a T]
> > than Harshman, who idiotically thought that talk about the horse *lineage*
> > was creationist!

> Harshman never thought any such thing. You are confused.

If so, you wrote mindlessly about what you think. This was in talk.origins late last year.

You claimed it was a typical creationist claim, because, y'know, the horse family isn't
a single lineage, it's a widely branching bush.

Trouble is, I spoke specifically about the lineage from an early equid to Equus, and not about the horse family.

> And why attack me in a response to Glenn?

Why did you attack Glenn in an earlier response to me? [...pot...kettle...]

> > He seems to have momentarily forgotten that all vertebrate evolution
> > is of the parent-offspring sort, so wedded is he to the ideology that all fossils
> > belong on the tips of evolutionary trees.

> This is a highly distorted statement of what I think, or have forgotten.

I admit, the first clause was satirical, but I stand by what follows as a probable explanation
for your reaction to my talk of the lineage. Your ideology forbids you to construct
trees like Kathleen Hunt's fine one of Equioidea in the Talk.origins horse FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

You can see a lineage going directly from Hyracotherium all the way to Equus,
consisting of prime candidates [remember my definition?] for direct ancestry of
each genus to the next. In the text, she even talks about a lineage within
Merychippus, with gradual evolution from one species to the next.

> Shame on you.

Au contraire, you need to be careful about trying to support your allegations of confusion and distortion.
Remember how you claimed that you hadn't confused the Higgs field with the Higgs boson,
and Glenn dug up the very post where you got confused?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Sight Reader

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 2:38:57 PM7/4/22

to

Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)

Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:

Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.

Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centered around data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access. As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be respected before opening data to analysis.

This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.

Did I at least get the summary right? I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 2:51:19 PM7/4/22

to

Then you aren't reading him closely. Of course he seldom actually says
anything. He just posts links, sometimes with cryptic one-liners
attached. Still, those links are often to creationist web sites like
Uncommon Descent or Evolution News & Views. Is that merely coincidence?

> I challenge you to try and find a single bit of hard evidence that
> he is motivated by creationism.

I suppose you could ask him, though he seldom actually answers questions.

>>> Until now, all I've seen either here or in talk.origins
>>> is unsupported accusations, like the much rarer claims that *I* am a creationist!
>>>
>>> I am more intelligently anti-creationisM [note that last letter -- definitely not a T]
>>> than Harshman, who idiotically thought that talk about the horse *lineage*
>>> was creationist!
>
>> Harshman never thought any such thing. You are confused.
>
> If so, you wrote mindlessly about what you think. This was in talk.origins late last year.

What was in talk.origins last year? Please give a direct quote.

> You claimed it was a typical creationist claim, because, y'know, the horse family isn't
> a single lineage, it's a widely branching bush.

What was a typical creationist claim?

> Trouble is, I spoke specifically about the lineage from an early equid to Equus, and not about the horse family.

> Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:

What you write next is a reasonably good assessment of the first linked article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00739-0,

> Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.

The first paper holds out hope with virtual 3-d scans being of great value. I learned a lot about
paleontology of Arctoidea after reading the fascinating description of the extinct *Kolponomos*
which is accompaned by two views of a 3-d scan.

From the name, I had long assumed that Arctoidea only included the bear family Ursidae and the raccoon family
Procyonidae, but it includes Canidae, Mustelidae, the pinnipeds, and various extinct groups like the dog-bears
(Hemicyonidae), but not the bear-dogs (Amphycionidae). Kolponomos belongs to the sister group of the pinnipeds,
it seems. All this was new to me.

>
> Thus, it would appears that we have a classic IP (intellectual property) struggle. A completely open exchange of digitized models would instigate a radical (and perhaps destructive?) restructuring of the research community and create teams centered around data processing and computational capabilities rather than direct access.

That isn't destructive, but an unfortunate sign of the times: governmental sources of funding for paleontology are
increasingly tied to computer applications, because those can be touted to be of value to money-making applications
remote from paleontology.

Invertebrate paleontologists have a cozy relationship with oil and mineral companies, but private support of
vertebrate paleontology is much less reliable.

> As a result, existing research communities are struggling to protect their value proposition by installing IP barriers that request that their physical access advantage be respected before opening data to analysis.

There is a lot of that, but the article holds out hope for greater sharing of digital information, perhaps for a fee.

>
> This, of course, would answer my question about why every museum cannot display equally comprehensive collections of recreations.
>
> Did I at least get the summary right?

Of the first link. I gave a little summary of the second in reply to Harshman.

> I’m SO SO sorry to get on everyone’s nerves!

No such thing happened.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 7:07:21 PM7/4/22

to

On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
>
> You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
> and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."

No, the fight began when Glenn posted. And I think I mentioned Glenn
before Erik did. But if there's a fight, you seem to have chosen a side.

> And believe me, this "fight" is mild compared to some donnybrooks that have taken place here in the past.
> I alluded to an oasis of civilization we once made of sci.bio.paleontology in my reply to Harshman less than an hour ago,
> but I'm afraid that bringing it back is only remotely possible.

Perhaps you could try by acting in a civilized manner.

>> Anyway, from what I can tell, this is what these papers APPEAR to be saying:
>
> What you write next is a reasonably good assessment of the first linked article:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00739-0,
>
>> Firstly, the increasing quality of digitized data is allowing more and more research to be conducted remotely - that is, without direct access to fossilized remains. Traditional research, unfortunately, is still predicated on physical proximity.
>
> The first paper holds out hope with virtual 3-d scans being of great value. I learned a lot about
> paleontology of Arctoidea after reading the fascinating description of the extinct *Kolponomos*
> which is accompaned by two views of a 3-d scan.
>
> From the name, I had long assumed that Arctoidea only included the bear family Ursidae and the raccoon family
> Procyonidae, but it includes Canidae, Mustelidae, the pinnipeds, and various extinct groups like the dog-bears
> (Hemicyonidae), but not the bear-dogs (Amphycionidae). Kolponomos belongs to the sister group of the pinnipeds,
> it seems. All this was new to me.

How is that different from Canoidea? Just curious.

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 4, 2022, 7:12:46 PM7/4/22

to

This is the sort of thing that prevents sci.bio.paleontology from being
an environment for civilized discourse. You are currently the chief
purveyor of insults and canards. If you would stop, that would help.

>> Perhaps you don't generally read his posts. Is that true?
>
> I don't "generally" read ANYONE'S posts in talk.origins.
> Unlike here in s.b.p., it is next to impossible for me to follow all but a tiny percentage of the threads.
> I'm usually confined to one or two threads a great part of the time, partly because of irresponsible personal attacks on me.
>
> Those attacks are a win-win situation for almost all the attackers: if I show how
> unjust they are, people routinely lie that I "attack people for disagreeing with" me.
> If I keep mum about them, they mislead people about what I am like.
>
> Talk.origins is a cesspool, in stark contrast to the civilized group we made of
> sci.bio.paleontology between April 2015 and early 2018. I'd rather not go into
> what became of it in the next four years, for the sake of some semblance of peace between us
> ("us" includes Erik).

Your obsession with imagined wrongs people have done to you is another
obstacle, better kept out of sci.bio.paleontology.

>>> Plus, he often posts links that contain much on-topic information of great interest to me,
>>> like the two links in his first post to this thread.
>>>
>>> Erik seriously misunderstood what those links were all about.
>>> Have you even looked at them?
>
>> No, but it seems clear that he's attacking paleontology, especially in
>> the second link, which plays up the prevalence of faked (composite) fossils.
>
> About dishonest merchants and NOT about fossils in museums, where "fakery"
> is obviously used with tongue in cheek until the point, far down the article, where it says:
>
> "And then there are outright fakes"
> https://fossilcollector.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/fakingit2/
>
> Just as I suspected, you are blindly following an equivocation by Erik, which you are parroting.
>
> I wonder how many more of your impressions of Glenn's purpose are similarly
> second- or third- hand.

Why do you think Glenn posted that link? Do you think he was trying to
make some kind of point, and if so, what might it have been?

>>>> Do you understand that
>>>> Glenn is here trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vertebrate
>>>> fossil record?
>>>
>>> "here" refers to this thread, as of the time you posted this. There is no
>>> evidence for that, none whatsoever. Are you blindly taking Erik's distortions
>>> as being representative of the two links?
>
> You ducked the question, fat lot of good that did you.

I tend to resist answering loaded questions.

>> You are entirely mistaking Glenn's purpose.
>
> So you allege, but you have yet to come up with a smidgin of evidence.
> Ironically, if Glenn hadn't put his foot in it with "the obvious bias," I wouldn't
> even have a smidgin of it.
>
> And no, I'm NOT going to try to read Glenn's mind about what that meant.
> You are so trigger-happy with accusations of mind-reading, you even confuse descriptions
> of your *behavior* with mind-reading your *motivations*.

unread,

Jul 5, 2022, 9:56:33 AM7/5/22

to

What part of "seeming intended to show...bad and/or idiots" don't you understand? Those are YOUR words, not mine.

You are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have given
ZERO evidence of intent by Glenn where THAT post is concerned, and expect
me to believe what you wrote about "most of his posts," despite the fact that
you have also given ZERO evidence of that so far.

If all you meant was that "I, Harshman, am of the opinion that he is,
and has had, the intent of showing that `evolutionists' are bad and/or idiots,
but I can't give evidence that would convince even Erik or my other good friends in talk.origins,"
then we can safely dismiss your opinion.

However, in that case, you owe The Sight Reader an apology for the misleading
words you uttered about Glenn, some in direct reply to him.

> > Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
> > to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
> >
> > Feel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way
> > about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good
> > terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
> > and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
> > One is right here: Erik Simpson.

And, since they are on good terms with you, you might even try
contacting some of them in private email if you don't want
to interrupt whatever they are doing in talk.origins.

> > So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
> > I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
> > Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.

> Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.

Feel free to do that yourself, if you think it will help you to round the right people up.
I'm not going to do YOUR work for you.

Peter Nyikos

erik simpson

unread,

Jul 5, 2022, 11:00:32 AM7/5/22

to

I have absolutely no intention of "documenting" Glenn's essentially destructive behavior here or anywhere else. I'd be happy if there
were more discussion of, say, paleontology? That's ostensibly the subject here. If you disagree, that's fine, but senseless quarreling
over just about anything seems be the main topic in TO, at least for the present. Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment
there and enlighten everyone about his qualities? I'm sure you'll get a bigger audience. Feel free to make comments about me. I've
become indifferent to that kind of crap.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Jul 11, 2022, 5:00:14 PM7/11/22

to

What follows is a classic example of a "defense" of Harshman according to one traditional meaning
in talk.origins: getting people off the hook by attacking the the people they are attacking.

There is someone you, Erik, know very well in talk.origins who refers to it as "being on a tag team."
I've patiently waited 6 days to see whether John believes he has been let off the hook; his silence
the whole time on this thread suggests that he does believe that.

> I have absolutely no intention of "documenting" Glenn's essentially destructive behavior here or anywhere else.

Of course not. If you were to try to do that, it almost certainly would rapidly transpire that Glenn is only
about 1% as destructive here in s.b.p. as you have been these last four and a half years,
and far less destructive (though maybe not so spectacularly) in talk.origins.

> I'd be happy if there
> were more discussion of, say, paleontology?

"Here is Rhodes, now jump!"

Recognize the allusion? You are taking the words out of Harshman's mouth:
every time he has painted himself into a corner with personal attacks,
he pretends to be far more interested in paleontology than continuing.

>That's ostensibly the subject here.

"Here is Rhodes, now jump!"

>If you disagree, that's fine, but senseless quarreling
> over just about anything seems be the main topic in TO, at least for the present.

I wouldn't know: I haven't been able to participate in any discussion outside of
geometry (on the "Antedating Sagan" thread). There, one person has really tried to
initiate senseless quarreling with me, and this person is so frustrated by my not
going into it that 'e has taken to falsely accuse me of having done so.

> Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment
> there and enlighten everyone about his qualities?
> I'm sure you'll get a bigger audience. Feel free to make comments about me. I've
> become indifferent to that kind of crap.

There is an awful lot of mendacity and hypocrisy crammed into those four lines.
I'll just tackle the first two lines for now.

> Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment there

Because s.b.p. is where it has ALL been taking place, the part of which I am aware.
I'd be wasting a whole lot of time doing what I told Harshman was HIS work
[see my last line in reply to him above].

> and enlighten everyone about his qualities?

This may shock you: I don't think highly of Glenn at all.

The concept of disinterested justice may be so alien to you, that you
cannot comprehend that THAT is what I've been pursuing all through
my interaction with John and you about Glenn.

Or perhaps you are so cynical that you think it is humanly
impossible for any person to behave in that way.
IOW, you think Jesus's parable of The Good Samaritan
is a complete fairy tale. In contrast, it has been an
inspiration to me ever since the age of 10.

If either of these is the case, let me know, and I will try
to explain things in a way to which you can relate.

Peter Nyikos

PS So, when will you start talking about paleontology on this thread again?
A careful reading of the two links Glenn gave should give you plenty
of raw material, especially the first, which neither you nor John have
shown any interest in. See my Jul 4, 2022, 4:13:50 PM reply to The Sight Reader
on this thread for some clues as to how it could be treated.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Jul 13, 2022, 12:23:44 PM7/13/22

to

Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.

Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 11:00:32 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 6:56:33 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 7/5/22 5:06 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 12:49:29 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >> On 7/4/22 7:26 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>>> On 7/4/22 1:13 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ack! I didn’t mean to start a fight! (ducks as various grades of sedimentary rocks go zipping over his head…)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> You are completely innocent. The "fight" began when Erik wrote " 'Glenn" (in subsequent post) is a locally famous contrarian"
> > > >>>>> and Harshman backed him up with "Glenn is best ignored."
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> No, the fight began when Glenn posted.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are being downright despicable.
> > > >
> > > >> Seems a little extreme.
> > > >
> > > > The injustice you committed is like a Bill of Attainder: just by showing up, Glenn is doing something
> > > > that deserves to be punished because...because...he is Glenn. The US Constitution specifically
> > > > forbids Congress to issue Bills of Attainder.
> > >
> > > >>> Accusing Glenn of starting a fight after
> > > >>> I've demonstrated that Erik misunderstood the two links that Glenn posted,
> > > >>> and that you were no better.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Prove that Glenn intended to attack the fossil record with THAT post, or retract your slur.

Here is where Harshman wrote something on which his whole case
against Glenn rests:

> > > >> True, it's hard to be sure of Glenn's motivations, since he almost never
> > > >> says. I'm largely going by his past behavior, with most of his posts
> > > >> seeming intended to show that "evolutionists" are bad and/or idiots, and
> > > >> his rare comments on his links fit that idea.
> > > >
> > > > Not on THAT post.
> >
> > > How do you know unless you can say what his purpose in posting was?
> > What part of "seeming intended to show...bad and/or idiots" don't you understand? Those are YOUR words, not mine.

Erik, you called this "crap" at the end. The crap is by Harshman, and that's why
you've got your head buried in the sand about it.

> > You are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You have given
> > ZERO evidence of intent by Glenn where THAT post is concerned, and expect
> > me to believe what you wrote about "most of his posts," despite the fact that
> > you have also given ZERO evidence of that so far.
> >
> > If all you meant was that "I, Harshman, am of the opinion that he is,
> > and has had, the intent of showing that `evolutionists' are bad and/or idiots,
> > but I can't give evidence that would convince even Erik or my other good friends in talk.origins,"
> > then we can safely dismiss your opinion.

Your name was mentioned here, Erik. Do you think this might be all Harshman meant?
What reason do you have for thinking otherwise?

> > However, in that case, you owe The Sight Reader an apology for the misleading
> > words you uttered about Glenn, some in direct reply to him.
> > > > Anyway, since you say "most of his posts" it should be no trouble for you
> > > > to come up with four (4) posts where this intent is very easy to infer.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to consult anyone in talk.origins who feels the same way
> > > > about him as you do. There should be at least eight who are on very good
> > > > terms with you: I can name that many whom I've had lots of interaction with,
> > > > and never seen you be on any but friendly terms with them. All have a very low opinion of Glenn.
> > > > One is right here: Erik Simpson.
> > And, since they are on good terms with you, you might even try
> > contacting some of them in private email if you don't want
> > to interrupt whatever they are doing in talk.origins.
> > > > So if just half of them come up with one post apiece that fit the description,
> > > > I'll accept that you acted in good faith with your "blame the victim" style comment.
> > > > Any four posts in the last decade are fair game.
> >
> > > Perhaps you could move this to talk.origins.
> > Feel free to do that yourself, if you think it will help you to round the right people up.
> > I'm not going to do YOUR work for you.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> Why not take your outrage over Glenn's treatment
> there and enlighten everyone about his qualities?

If I did that, I would not say anything about Glenn's qualities, but about
Harshman's behavior, laid out above.

> I'm sure you'll get a bigger audience.

I'm not interested in audience sizes; I am interested in justice.
From the looks of things, you have no use for the word "justice"
except in the very strict legal sense of lawsuits, criminal indictments, etc.

Since you follow an unspoken rule about bottom-posting,
I am repeating some things I wrote to you above, where they are less
likely to be ignored by you.

"Here is where Harshman wrote something on which his whole case
against Glenn rests:"

>Feel free to make comments about me. I've
> become indifferent to that kind of crap.

Repeated from above:

"Erik, you called this "crap" at the end. The crap is by Harshman, and that's why
you've got your head buried in the sand about it."

I also asked your opinion about something up there, but I'll be very happy if
you showed some sign of knowing what these two repeated bits are about.

Here is something I wrote to you on another thread:

"It's never too late to learn how to be a responsible adult. I hope at least one of you
is able to pull it off."
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/tTHBDVwbyaE/m/dmFB4GWmBQAJ
Re: Cold-adapted dinosaurs took over in the Jurassic?
Jul 8, 2022, 10:38:31 AM

Peter Nyikos

PS Neither you nor John has shown awareness of the linked post. I'd be very pleasantly surprised
if this post didn't get the same treatment.

John Harshman

unread,

Jul 13, 2022, 12:35:56 PM7/13/22

to

On 7/13/22 9:23 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snipped, as you would say "mercifully"]

You're falling back into your old habits. You can stop, I'm sure, and
you'll be better off if you do.

erik simpson

unread,

Jul 13, 2022, 2:38:06 PM7/13/22

to

On Wednesday, July 13, 2022 at 9:23:44 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Almost two days have elapsed since I posted my first reply to this post by Erik.
> In it, he shows no awareness of how Harshman has folded in reply
> to a request for evidence that Glenn is anti-evolution/paleontology,
> despite it being in plain sight above his bottom-posted words.
>
> Time to address the part I did not address earlier, and to remind readers of what is at stake here.
>

<snip very familiar verbiage>

Exchanges with you are very unpleasant and almost never informative. I'm through
with this episode.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Sep 22, 2022, 12:56:56 PM9/22/22

to

I've done a little catch-as-catch-can posting on the thread,
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics
before I go back to my posting break. With the few minutes I have left to
spare, I deal with some long-unfinished business on this thread.

There's a classic case of "sour grapes" if there ever was one.

Anyway, you are invited to the thread I mentioned above, where you have never
participated despite the highly informative nature of a sizable fraction of the posts.
Ruben Safir, posting as Popping mad, has been struggling with the concept
that is second nature to Harshman and yourself: the doctrine that all species
must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees.

So I gave him a longish primer on the concept a few hours ago:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/slPe9xLMxkk/m/nZOaeyXnBQAJ
Re: The False Dichotomy of Cladistics and Phenetics

You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

erik simpson

unread,

Sep 22, 2022, 3:02:16 PM9/22/22

to

Your theological debates are of no interest to me. "Highly informative" doesn't begin to
describe it.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Sep 26, 2022, 8:11:35 AM9/26/22

to

There were NO theological debates on that thread. "treatment of the subject" refers to the non-religious

"doctrine that all species must be put at the branch tips of phylogenetic trees."

Did you deliberately misunderstand the word "religiously"?

> "Highly informative" doesn't begin to describe it.

You never looked at the thread, did you?

But now, here is a thread you started and I revived a few minutes ago
with a completely on-topic post:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/26BZZ4NIrHw/m/hKq-zEe4EgAJ
Re: Yet another evolutionary tree.

Now I've given you two current on-topic threads to which to contribute. Still unwilling?

Peter Nyikos

erik simpson

unread,

Sep 26, 2022, 11:18:19 AM9/26/22

to

Not unwilling at all. I've simply heard (I believe) all you have to say about "cladism bad", "ancestor candidates
good". It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
generally moved on in the last thirty years. I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.

I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.

Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 9:53:50 AM9/27/22

to

This is a distortion of what I stand for, and if you had read what went on in "False Dischotomy"
you would know that there was a lot of new talk about the deficiencies of both cladism
and phenetics: I had never talked about the latter subject before.

> It's not a new subject for you, and I find arguments about it simply anachronistic. Paleontology has
> generally moved on in the last thirty years.

That's a highly non-scientific comment.

> I haven't anything to contribute to the discussion of the "yet another
> phylogenetic tree" because I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the research.

The thread about that is not about them, but about the [de]merits of exposition.
The research results are taken for granted, and the latest topic is the surprises
the phylogenetic tree hads in store for us.

> I can't say much about the developmental stages of egg production between external egg laying and partial or
> complete placentalism except to remark that the fossil record isn't a great place to look for such fine detail.
>
> Sentences like "You may want to check how religiously your treatment of the subject follows Harshman's."
> aren't likely to change my mind about conversations with you.

You have only yourself to blame for this: NONE of the irritations of 2022 would have occurred
if you had not destroyed the oasis of civilization in s.b.p. that began in 2015
and ended with your adamant refusal in early 2018 to abide by the terms of our agreement.

Harshman and Oxyaena backed you to the hilt, and the three of you proceeded
to turn s.b.p. into a miniature version of talk.origins. It got so bad that,
about a year after the three of you destroyed our [1] agreement, I boycotted
you and Oxyaena for the rest of 2019 in both s.b.p. and t.o.

[1] Oxyaena was never party to our agreement, and her role in making
the destruction tempting to you and Harshman reminds me
of Eris, the goddess of discord.

In the past week, Harshman made it abundantly clear
that he is happy about the destruction of that oasis.
It seems that I am the only person who remembers the oasis fondly.

Peter Nyikos

erik simpson

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 10:59:56 AM9/27/22

to

It seems your own contributions to the "destruction of that oasis" somehow escape your memory.

Peter Nyikos

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 11:26:46 AM9/27/22

to

It seems they were nonexistent. If you have evidence to the contrary,
please show it.

In the meantime, I note that you aren't exhibiting any fondness for the oasis.

Peter Nyikos

John Harshman

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 11:44:37 AM9/27/22

to

Somebody will have to end this pointless exchange, and you seem the best
candidate for that.

erik simpson

unread,

Sep 27, 2022, 12:23:07 PM9/27/22

to

Consider it done.